You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 30, 2019

Franchising in Myanmar

This article was first published on Franchise Law Insider—a blog maintained by US Law Firm Quarles & Brady LLP—and was co-authored by Sher Hann Chua, a consultant at Tilleke & Gibbins’ Bangkok and Yangon offices, and Bob Smith, a partner in the Washington, DC office of Quarles & Brady LLP.

Introduction

The relaxation of foreign investment restrictions and a growing, aspiring middle class have encouraged new players to enter Myanmar’s franchising industry in recent years. Previously, franchises in Myanmar predominantly operated in the food and beverage industry; however, in the last few years, the country has witnessed a growth spurt of franchise operations in the services and education sectors. While no official statistics are available on overseas franchises in the country, brands currently present in Myanmar include, among others, Best Western, Europcar, Gloria Jean’s Coffees, Gymboree, KFC, Krispy Kreme, Pingu’s English, and Swensen’s.

Regulations

Myanmar does not currently have any specific legislation regulating franchise relationships. In addition, there are no statutory, pre-sale disclosure requirements. Nevertheless, franchise relations are subject to relevant provisions under other statutes applicable to contracts and business operations in the country, such as the Competition Law 2015, the Consumer Protection Law 2019, the Contract Act 1872, the Myanmar Companies Law 2017, and the Trademark Law 2019.

Intellectual Property

Many franchisors are rightly concerned that a former franchisee will utilize the knowledge and experience gained from running a franchise operation to open a competing business. To prevent this, it is vital for franchisors to protect themselves by using clear and comprehensive language in their franchise agreements.

Myanmar enacted its new Trademark Law and Industrial Designs Law in January 2019, and its Patent Law in March 2019, paving the way for a stronger intellectual property landscape in the country. Under this new system, trademark, industrial design, and patent licenses must be recorded with the intellectual property office to be deemed enforceable in Myanmar. Similarly, under the Science, Technology, and Innovation Law 2018, all agreements on technology transfers must comply with the terms set by the National Council for Science, Technology, and Innovation Development, and must be registered with the designated registrar to be deemed enforceable. Franchisors should take note of these requirements to ensure that they develop a robust intellectual property protection and commercialization framework under their franchise systems.

Competition Law

While Myanmar courts generally honor and enforce contractual terms, a franchisor should be cautious about abusing its bargaining power or imposing conditions that may result in interference in the franchisee’s business operations, as these may violate provisions of local law. Charging different franchise fees to different franchisees may raise anti-competitive concerns. Restrictive covenants prohibiting a former franchisee from engaging in a similar business upon the expiration or termination of a franchise relationship should contain carefully drafted limitations on the term and geographical area in which the restrictive covenants are applicable. Further, franchise agreements should also be supplemented by robust provisions prohibiting the disclosure and use of information, knowledge, and trade secrets obtained from operation of the franchise. Under the Competition Law 2015, unauthorized disclosure of trade secrets is an act punishable by imprisonment for a term of up to two years, a fine of up to MMK 10 million (approximately US  $7,700), or both.

Taxation

Initial fees and ongoing royalty fees are subject to a withholding tax payable by a non-resident foreign franchisor at a rate of 15 percent, and by a resident foreign or local franchisor at a rate of 10 percent. For goods sold or services rendered as part of a franchise transaction by the franchisor, such as operational equipment and training fees, a withholding tax of 2.5 percent is applicable for a non-resident foreign franchisor, whereas, since July 1, 2018, no withholding tax is payable by a resident foreign or local franchisor. Subject to the discretion of the Ministry of Planning and Finance and the Internal Revenue Department, the withholding tax amount payable by non-resident foreigners may be reduced or exempted if there are existing double-taxation agreements in place. To date, Myanmar has entered into double-taxation agreements with India, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam.

Dispute Resolution

It is common for foreign franchisors in Myanmar to opt for the franchise agreement to be governed by foreign laws, and for disputes to be settled via arbitration outside of Myanmar, such as in Singapore under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules. In accordance with the Arbitration Law 2016, the default position is that a Myanmar court will not intervene in matters governed by the Arbitration Law 2016, except where the act so provides. Myanmar courts also refer parties to an arbitration agreement if a party so requests before submitting its written statement, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or is incapable of being performed.

As a signatory to the New York Convention, foreign arbitral awards are recognized and enforceable by Myanmar courts, except in certain cases. For example, a Myanmar court may refuse to recognize foreign arbitral awards if it finds that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Myanmar law, or if the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the national interest. Myanmar courts may also enforce interim orders, orders, and directives given by arbitral tribunals seated both inside and outside of Myanmar. Therefore, unless the dispute arising from a franchise agreement falls within one of the limited exceptions of the Arbitration Law 2016, Myanmar courts are required to honor an election of international arbitration dispute resolution where an arbitration clause has been incorporated into such franchise agreement.

A foreign civil court judgment is enforceable in Myanmar under the Civil Procedure Code, if it was pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction, was decided on merits, was not obtained by fraud, is not against the principles of natural justice, is in accordance with the principles of international law, and does not sustain a claim founded on breach of any law in force in Myanmar.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 21, 2025
Although the “passing off” principle has sometimes faced criticism for potentially broadening trademark protection—particularly in cases involving unregistered or unconventional marks like shapes, scents, or sounds—it serves an essential purpose. It safeguards the rights of business owners and shields consumers from deception, ensuring fair competition and reflecting the realities of modern commerce. What is passing off, and why is registrability not required? The passing-off principle is a legal concept rooted in English law, aimed at preventing a person from falsely representing or using a mark similar to another’s in a way that causes consumers to mistakenly believe the goods or services come from the same source. Under Thai law, the passing-off principle is provided under Section 46 of the Thai Trademark Act, which states: No person shall be entitled to bring legal proceedings to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark. The provisions of this Section shall not affect the right of the owner of an unregistered trademark to bring legal proceedings against any person for passing off goods as those of the owner of the trademark. The passing-off principle can be interpreted as a practical legal concept. It does not require proof that the mark is registrable or meets the registrability criteria under trademark law. It is sufficient to show that the mark has established goodwill and that the other party’s use of a similar mark is likely to confuse consumers, making it a straightforward and effective tool for protecting brand assets. Requiring a claimant to prove that an unregistered mark could have been registered would undermine the very function of passing off. The doctrine was conceived precisely to fill the gaps left by the registration system. Imposing registrability criteria would nullify its function and leave many commercially valuable identifiers unprotected. If the
August 15, 2025
Indonesia’s Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) has introduced a temporary feature in its online filing system to accommodate the submission of annual patent working statements. The requirement to submit these annual working statements was introduced under the amended Patent Law enacted on October 28, 2024, but the implementing regulation has still not been issued. Annual Working Statements Article 20A of the amended Patent Law requires all patentees to submit an annual statement regarding the implementation of their patents in Indonesia. This obligation applies to all active patents, regardless of when they were granted. The annual working statement declares the status of implementation of the patented invention within Indonesia. Acceptable forms of implementation include: Manufacturing the patented product (whether commercialized or not) Utilizing the patented process (whether commercialized or not) Importation Licensing If the patent has not yet been implemented in Indonesia, the DGIP provides an option to indicate: “The mentioned registered patent has not been implemented in Indonesia.” The statement must be made using the official template provided by the DGIP through the online filing system. Submission The working statement must be submitted annually no later than December 31 of each calendar year. No supporting documents are needed for the submission apart from the signed form itself. A color scanned copy will suffice; the original document is not required. There is currently no official fee for submitting the working statement. While the submission process may eventually align with annuity fee payments, the current process remains separate due to the pending implementing regulation. The submission process may be subject to change upon issuance of the implementing regulation, which is under discussion and expected in the coming months. In the interim, the DGIP accepts submissions of overdue working statements, allowing patentees to fulfill their obligations retroactively. This flexibility is expected
July 31, 2025
The Madrid System for international trademark registration provides the opportunity for a simplified and cost-effective way to register trademarks in multiple countries through a single application. Indonesia joined the Madrid System in 2018, and in 2024 alone, it received over 8,600 applications through this system. Despite the system’s effectiveness, it is important for trademark owners to be aware of the potential risks of refusal that can arise during the process of registration. Trademark applicants must pay close attention to these critical points when designating Indonesia. Appointing a Local Representative to Respond An applicant or representative of an international registration (IR) application that has been provisionally refused must appoint a local Indonesian representative in order to submit a response to the provisional refusal. This appointment is solely for the purpose of responding to the refusal in Indonesia; it is not necessary if the IR has not received any rejection. Furthermore, the local representative should not be registered with WIPO, as doing so would affect representation across all designated countries. Timing When it comes to calculating the deadline for responding to a provisional refusal, there is a discrepancy between the methods used by the DGIP and WIPO. Under the Indonesian Trademark Law, trademark owners can file a response within 30 working days, excluding weekends and national holidays. However, the WIPO cover letter accompanying the DGIP’s provisional refusal notice specifies both the start date and the deadline for responding to the notification, which is calculated as 30 calendar days, including weekends and national holidays. Therefore, a response to the provisional refusal of IR should be submitted in accordance with the WIPO cover letter to prevent any formality issue. Grounds for Refusal After an IR application is published in Indonesia’s Trademark Gazette, it undergoes substantive examination by the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) examiners. The
July 30, 2025
Artificial intelligence (AI) model training and data scraping are essential processes in the development of modern AI systems. AI model training involves using large datasets to teach machine learning algorithms to recognize patterns, make predictions, or generate new content. Data scraping refers to the automated extraction of information from websites or digital sources, often to assemble the vast datasets required for effective AI training. As these practices become more widespread, questions about the legality of using third-party content—especially copyrighted works—have become increasingly important. In Thailand, the legal landscape for AI developers is shaped primarily by the Copyright Act, which presents unique challenges due to the absence of a fair-use exception. This article examines the copyright-related risks and legal uncertainties facing AI developers under Thailand’s current copyright law and practices, offering strategic guidance for navigating this complex environment. Copyright Risks in AI Scraping and Training Thailand’s Copyright Act does not provide a broad fair use or fair dealing exception, unlike some other jurisdictions, such as the United States. This absence has significant consequences for AI developers: No general defense for AI training: Any use of copyrighted material for AI model training is presumed to be infringing unless a specific, narrow statutory exception applies or explicit permission is obtained from the rights holder. There is no general legal basis for using copyrighted works in AI training without authorization. Increased rights clearance burden: Developers must identify and secure licenses for every copyrighted work included in their training datasets. Given the scale and diversity of data required for effective AI models, this process can be both impractical and costly. Legal ambiguity and litigation risk: The lack of clear statutory guidance or case law leaves developers in a legal gray area. There is no established precedent clarifying whether certain uses of copyrighted material for